Gosh. This is just terrible stuff. The article begins by comparing gay 'relationship' (and very very loosely defined at that) to heterosexual 'marriage'. Complete statistics fail. Why did they not include all the straight blokes visiting K Rd and similar heterosexual male entertainment precincts?

Gosh. This is just terrible stuff. The article begins by comparing gay 'relationship' (and very very loosely defined at that) to heterosexual 'marriage'. Complete statistics fail. Why did they not include all the straight blokes visiting K Rd and similar heterosexual male entertainment precincts?

Because it didn't suit the agenda they were pushing? Nah, that can't be it.

Gosh. This is just terrible stuff. The article begins by comparing gay 'relationship' (and very very loosely defined at that) to heterosexual 'marriage'. Complete statistics fail. Why did they not include all the straight blokes visiting K Rd and similar heterosexual male entertainment precincts?

Because it didn't suit the agenda they were pushing? Nah, that can't be it.

The Family Research Council has stated that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour" should be enforced, and have claimed that repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual service members. They have also associated gay men with paedophilia, and as such have been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a hate group.

I will take nobody arguing about my logic as general approval, starting with this:

menabassily:

BraaiGuy:

menabassily:

Ok, "Natural" means it's nature's way, and yes eating a husband is normal and happens, as humans we have this criminalized. Same thing with same sex relationships, it's normal, it happens in nature as well, but they are not legally allowed to get married like others.

Second thing, sexual preference is not about "learning" however, yes we do learn from nature, most of our inventions are based on that bare idea.

Update:

And yes, we are animals, you said we evolved, that's good, pigs are no fish and fish are no birds. What's your point????

My point is that by using the word natural I mean physically and “mechanically” its just does not work. Never has, and never will. Gay couples are not natural. Maybe thats not the word, but its not the norm for obvious reasons.

Gay and Lesbian couples cannot make children. Their offspring cannot have the DNA of both parents like a “normal” child baring relationship can. I see it as them asking for rights to something nature does not allow.

So yes I see gay relationships as unnatural. Its got nothing to do with the way I was brought up, or my religion. Maybe its just that part of me that shudders when I see two guys together, makes me ill. (Sorry if that offends, but its how I feel) And I know that many heterosexual men feel the same. Allowing gay marriage is not going to solve the problem about society not accepting it. Many people including myself will never accept it.

Just my view. Go on shoot me down ...

:) lol @ shoot me down. It's not like that mate, you have your own way and beliefs. It's fine, we disagree with each other and have different ways seeing the world, but that doesn't mean that I will shoot you down, nor deny you the right (which I have) to express yourself freely.

So, do you agree with what I just said??? Then all you need to do is do the same with gay couples. Their way of seeing the world is different than me and you, and me and you also disagree with them on the sausages vs tacos concept. But that doesn't mean we should deny them the right to do as we do >>>> Marriage, the ultimate choice to fudge up your own life.

Nature is a BH anyway, it makes people and land then volcano (as a verb lol) them out of there.

menabassily: And this again is gold, lesbian monkeys get it on when males are around. But again I know the responses will be like "They are animals, we are humans" or "Animals will do anything that feels nice" etc etc etc...

"Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments."

"Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments."

Straight sexual activity is a behaviour too.

Those damn straight and their sexual perversions! I wish they'd stop it! They're going to hell because it's a sin, etc!*

*/Sarcasm, and yet not.

As I, other people and David have been saying, you can't make a moral judgement of sexuality, because sexuality isn't a choice.

"Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments."

I find it intriguing how anyone who may disagree with a gay persons viewpoint is immediately labelled a bigot.

Mauricio Freitas is the site admin, and a willing participant in supporting this behaviour. Mauricio made a rule that no name calling is allowed, but he is quite happy to allow it when it suits his own agenda (by fact he has not removed or banned the posters from using this language).

AJROBBINs paraphrases a good example of this righteous anger as follows...

"My view is that the vast majority of arguments against marriage equality I have seen appear to be (poorly disguised) fronts for peoples prejudices and religious agendas." ie, you agree with me or your a prejudiced bigot (and likely a racist paid up KKK member too).

This is despite some gay people themselves disagreeing with gay marriage -- does that also make them prejudiced bigots too? For those such as AJ ROBBINS , Mauricio, and Kynamar2 I suggest you read the following link ...

I'm more interested in this 'bigot' labelling phenomenon than the actual gay-marriage debate.

Yeah, but we have had the term 'unnatural', the phrase 'not normal' and, my personal fav 'you are just an exception' thrown around in this thread. These were used by posters talking about lifestyles they didn't agree with.

It is stated that the Off Topic forum is less moderated thatn the others.

Sure, saying "You don't agree with me, you are a bigot" is hollow. So is "You do something I don't want to do, you'er unnatural".

From the first online dictionary I could find, I'm guessing we can include sexual orientation: big·ot n.One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So, if you seek to limit freedoms you enjoy to others because they don't share your sexual orientation then I would say you are intolerant and meet the standard to be called a bigot.

If an atheist sought to stop Christians worshiping because they disagreed with his world view then he would be a bigot too.